User talk:Roxy the dog

<shit> Can you explain your blind reverts to XLRI - Xavier School of Management? </shit>

<shit>The name added to the alumni list of XLRI - Xavier School of Management is acceptable as per WP:ALUMNI, WP:LISTCRIT. Also until very recently they had their own page on WP. Also I am not supposed to create mainspace article for a person so that they can be added to their alumni list when their notability for the list can be established via RS in the list itself. Roller26 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)</shit>

See User talk:Roller26#September 2020. It wasn't just Roxy that reverted you. The link was removed by an administrator per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aroul D. Shankar here[1] and again by a different administrator here.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I wont respond further, but this should have been broached at the article Talk page, not here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Mum

Hey, I know you’ve harped a few times on his English knowledge, but it doesn’t reflect great when you’re missing his use of mum to mean silent and assuming he’s using mum for mother. He’s saying that you made the edit to the reference desk but have been mum (silent) on the talk page; yes he’s missing some sort of verb before the mum, but I think his intention is still clear. The twice typo of “unacceptable” as “unnacceptable” also doesn’t help. I’m just noting this as an outside observer; his English skills are certainly not the greatest, but are certainly not the worst.

There are certainly other concerns with the user, but I think harping on that continually isn’t a hill to die on. only (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

He's illiterate, almost, in english. He also is hopeless in his chosen subject. Put the two together and ... I'll back off for a couple of days, but something has to be done if he continues to post rubbish, as he is currently doing. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit reversal

Hello, you reverted a edit that was made to the traditional Chinese medical page. The only explanation that you made was that it was better before, in the lead their was information that is not Lead content also there in no information about its addition to the Global Diagnostic Compendium, ICD and that is the subject of the article from Nature Magazine. Please explain your statement of better before as your reason for wasting my edditing time. Shenqijing (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page the administror suggested the bulk of that edit it was a simple cut and paste, the other information is supported by a valid citation from Nature Magazine. So what do you need to move forward on this one. Shenqijing (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Talk page says nothing of the sort. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to say you deleted a well research inclusion and citation using the same credible source as the other statement in the lead. Shenqijing (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your edits, use the article talk page, where other editors will be able to see and comment. Not here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added it to talk start talking, Shenqijing (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you talk third person, are you a edditor of this page? Shenqijing (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We are not amused with your continuing to post after being told "not here". It is our suggestion that you instead spend your time reading the many warnings on User talk:Shenqijing. For The Cabal, Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Latest : User has received 72 hr block for edit-warring at TCM. (TINC). -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your breaking of the three-reverts rule in the Turin Shroud article

Hi. You have reverted three aditions of content to the Turin Shroud article, in all three cases removing sourced information that had been in the article for years. You have therefore broken the three-edits rule of Wikipedia. I therefore ask you to please undo your own edit, otherwise, as you know, your breaking of the rule should be reported. Also, please note that there is a discussion going on in the page, which you're politely asked to take part of if you want to edit the article at this time. Arrasarro (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Haha. You have little idea what a revert is do you? Also, Years? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you read three-edits rule you'll see that, as for the rule: A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.. Again, I politely ask you to undo your last edit, otherwise your breaking of the rule shall have to be reported. Arrasarro (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I just fell of my chair laughing. Going to disable my 'undo' button. Also, Years? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arrasarro: That's a rule of no more than 3 reverts (not: edits). It means 3 reverts are okay, 4 reverts are bad. See also WP:BOOMERANG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the affirmation "but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus" that you are removing had been in the article for years, as you can see if you give yourself the trouble. I therefore will ask you a third time to revert your last edit, as another Wikipedia rules states the previous version should be kept while discussion goes on. Arrasarro (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arrasarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• 10:02, 24 September 2020:[3] Wdford edits with the summary "Removed papal opinions from lead, as discussed on talk." 0RR for Wdford

(Discussion is at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Introduction)

• 12:55, 24 September 2020:[4] Arrasarro reverts. 1RR
• 13:44, 24 September 2020:[5] William M. Connolley reverts. 1RR
• 08:41, 28 September 2020:[6] Arrasarro reverts. 2RR
• 09:33, 28 September 2020:[7] Wdford removes papal opinions. 1RR
• 09:51, 28 September 2020:[8] Arrasarro reverts. 3RR
• 09:53, 28 September 2020:[9] William M. Connolley reverts. 2RR
• Revision as of 10:01, 28 September 2020:[10] Arrasarro re-ads papal opinions. Slightly different wording, but still a revert. 4RR.
• 10:55, 28 September 2020:[11] Roxy the dog reverts. 1RR
• 11:05, 28 September 2020:[12] Arrasarro reverts. 5RR.
• Revision as of 11:09, 28 September 2020:[13] Roxy the dog reverts. 2RR.
• Revision as of 11:14, 28 September 2020:[14] Arrasarro re-ads papal opinions. Slightly different wording, but still a revert. 6RR
• 12:22, 28 September 2020:[15] Roxy the dog reverts. 3RR.
• 12:45, 28 September 2020:[16] Arrasarro reverts. 7RR.
• 15:16, 28 September 2020:[17] Guy Macon reverts. 1RR.
• 15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC):[18] Arrasarro blocked for 36 hours for edit warring.

Roxy had to stop at 3RR because that's as high as dogs can count. :)

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Um ... One ... Two ... Many. -Roxy :the inedible dog . wooF 15:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage

I am going to assume good faith and extend an olive branch. If you could kindly view the talkpage of the article and comment on my detailed explanation for the edits, that would be appreciated. My aim isn't to "prevail" over you and I have no problem abandoning and withdrawing my edit if collaboratively it's decided that it does not improve the quality of the article. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Which article? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mention it, Camel urine. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I responded there anyway. IP numbers are always a blur to me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to link the diff to you prior to publishing so I've gone ahead and made the edit since I believe it's pretty straightforward and reverting is as simple as a click of a button. Have a look and hopefully no hard feelings over getting off on the wrong foot. 99.237.197.118 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Political trolling

Your actions on Natural News show politically motivated trolling. At first you accused me of being a Ukrainian and then deleted the comments but nothing here is really deleted! There is a history of your misbehavior and I have intentionally triggered a security audit because Google themselves verified that the site was NEVER removed for fake news which invalidates the existing sources which claim otherwise and never even contacted Google to get the truth. Seems you are the purveyor of fake news! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rritoch (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine? You appear to be confused. I have reported your edit warring anyway. Expect to be blocked. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What a shock. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring, the blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Whodathunkit? The unblock request at User talk:Rritoch#October 2020 is especially entertaining. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rritoch. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Does reporting anything to the Dept of Homeland Security actually rise to the level of a legal threat though. Are wikipedians quaking in their boots in fear? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"A legal threat, in [the context of WP:NLT], is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." Whether or not the Department of Homeland Security would actually bother to respond to a complaint about supposed suppression of imagined "civil liberties" by international editors on a private website is neither here nor there, the point is that they were using threats of potential real-world consequences to scare off other editors, instead of really doing much of anything in the interest of improving an article. "No legal threats" in this instance is really just a convenient shorthand for obviously not here to build an encyclopedia.

By the way, if there's some issue with my subsequent edits to Natural News, please (as always) feel free to correct me. I don't know what the hell PacMecEng is getting on about at AN3 but I've got better things to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If you check their edits around here, they just like to defend in indefensible and shit stir whenever possible. Look at their contributions to Jimbo's page and any ANI contribution. Valeince (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)